§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That, this House do now adjourn."
§ Mr. HOGGEI gave notice at the end of Questions of my intention to raise what seems to me a question of very considerable importance to many of our constituents. The House will remember that a 353 Select Committee was appointed to deal with the question of separation allowances and pensions to dependants of soldiers killed in the War. That Committee has issued an Interim Report, fixing the new separation allowances, and suggesting new pension arrangements. Those separation allowances come into effect on Monday next, and as there is only to-night and to-morrow available for discussion of this important matter, it seems to me that any criticism which is to be offered must be made now, if at all. I suggest that we are approving a scheme bristling in many respects with anomalies and hardships, none of which we have had an opportunity of discussing. To show the kind of thing that I have in mind, I would remind the House that the dependant of a soldier killed in the month of September has been drawing absolutely nothing up to the present date, whereas the dependant of a soldier who was killed at the beginning of October has been in receipt of separation allowance which was to be continued, as we were told, for twenty-six weeks.
I remind the House of this fact, that those twenty-six weeks will be up almost immediately; they will certainly be up at the end of March, and the Select Committee which we have erected has not yet considered the new authority that will require to be set up to pay those particular pensions, and—more important than paying the pensions—to determine the amount which is to be paid to the dependants of our soldiers. That seems to me a point in which the House ought to be interested, and I want to suggest in connection with these allowances that there are certain other points on which we ought to have more information than we have at the moment. The Financial Secretary to the War Office is present. He will remember that he has already, from the Front Bench, promised that the wives of soldiers who were married subsequently to 14th August—after the outbreak of War—are not only to receive separation allowances on and from 1st March, but are to receive a certain amount of arrears from a date which is to be fixed. The House will bear in mind exactly what has happened. You have women who married after the outbreak of the War. Their husbands went to the front in many cases, and are there. They have not been in receipt of any separation allowance, and they will not be in receipt of any until 1st March. I should like to know from the 354 Financial Secretary what is the date the Government intend to fix as the date from which a wife in that position will be paid arrears, and also whether he can tell us the amount of the arrears that they will be paid. Will they be paid arrears for the whole time or for a part of the time, and in the payment of those arrears will they receive the arrears in a lump sum or will they be given on the principle of instalments?
Dealing with the question of separation allowances alone—because I think we ought to have, or take, another opportunity of dealing with pensions—which, at any rate, are remote some four weeks yet—I want to draw the attention of the House to what strikes me as a fact worth consideration. Hon. Members will remember that we have had two Reports, two White Papers—the first, Command Paper No. 7662, in which separation allowances were outlined which did not satisfy the House of Commons; then the Interim Report of the Select Committee set up to deal with the question both of allowances and pensions. In that Report we have very considerably increased separation allowances. Those allowances are paid on a flat rate. I think if one examines the matter from the point of view of a flate rate it will be found that extraordinary results emerge. The wife and children are divided by the Select Committee into three geographical groups. You have the wife and family who reside in London. You have the wife and family who reside in our large provincial towns. You have the wife and family who reside in our country districts. In each of these cases the allowance which is given is given on a flat rate, and, obviously, works out at the same figure. But I want to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to this result. Take the average, the typical, case of a soldier who leaves a wife and three children, having joined the New Army. According to the Select Committee that wife and family is, or will be, in receipt of 23s. That will be paid whether they live in London, the provinces, or in a country district; the only difference being that the wife and family in London will be in receipt of an extra 3s. 6d., which is supposed to cover rent.
I take it that the purpose of these allowances is to place the wife and family of the soldier, to use the words of the Financial Secretary himself—in an Instruction which has been sent to the pensions' officers—on approximately the same basis of comfort as they were in before the man 355 joined the Army. I do not want to elaborate this point too much, but I want to remind the House that we have a basis of figures available from the Board of Trade, and from men who have studied this problem in the country, who are known authorities, and who have fixed what is known in discussion as the Subsistence Basis of Livelihood. I need only remind the House that on that basis the the cost of maintaining an adult is 5s. per week, the cost of maintaining a child is 3s.; the cost of rent in London is 5s. 6d., in the provinces 4s., and in the country districts 2s. The cost of fuel and lighting is 1s. 6d.,.the cost of clothing 1s., and the cost of household sundries 1s. per week.
These figures the House will recognise err on the side of being just on the living margin. One would not defend them except in making the point that they are subsistence figures. If you work out on the subsistence figures which I have given, and which are admitted in all circles, and certainly on both sides of this House, it will cost a wife and family in London to live alone—merely to subsist—23s. per week. In the provinces it will cost 21s. 6d., and in the country districts 10s. 6d. Let me repeat the fact that the London family receives 26s. 6d., the provincial family and the family in the country 23s. You thus have this amazing result, that a woman in the country district is going to have as much money to maintain herself and her family as the woman in the London area, and mil have the same amount of margin. The woman and family in London will have sixpence a day margin; the woman and family in the country will have sixpence a day margin; but the woman and family who will be most hardly hit of all will be the wife of the soldier who has gone from the provincial town.
Every man who is listening to me in this House represents one of these constituencies, because they contain the greater part of the population of the country. I am trying to point out the incidence of these separation allowances, which are to come into force on Monday, and which we have been denied the opportunity to discuss in this House, and which have been considered by a Committee of the House—composed of men every one of whom is too busy to attend to the work—at the present moment you cannot get them together quick enough to decide certain questions that arise. It is a vital 356 point for those of us who represent the greater part of the population. I am perfectly certain that it will be futile to make an appeal to the Government to give more money. I do not think that those who represent it on the Front Bench at the moment would care to communicate that request to the powers that preside over them. I want, however, to suggest a fair compromise: Remember the figures which I have given. A woman in London gets 26s. 6d., one in the provinces 23s., and the one in the country 23s.—that is to say, for the three families the Government allowances amount to 72s. 6d. On the subsistence basis, to keep all three of them you require to spend 64s. on the figures which I gave. That leaves a balance of 8s. 6d. for the three families. Instead of giving the London family 3s. 6d. extra, I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that he should divide the margin in a different way.
I am going to suggest that the London family should get 4s.; the provincial family, 3s.; and the country family, 1s. 6d. That would mean that instead of 26s. 6d. for London, the figure would be 27s.; instead of 23s. for the provinces, it would be 24s. 6d.; and for the country is would be still one guinea. Surely a scheme of separation allowances ought not to permit what does exist under the scheme which we have before the House now. It is actually paying the wives and families of our agricultural labourers and people for the men to join the Army. The wife and family receive more than they do when the husband is working on the spot. Incidentally, may I remind the Financial Secretary that on the pension side of this scheme it will absolutely pay every agricultural labourer's wife in the country, from a money point of view, to have her husband killed at the front. She will have a bigger allowance for the rest of her life than if her husband were working for her.
I think these are points of criticism which are worth consideration. I do not enlarge on the scope of the separation allowances, yet I think someone ought to put the point that here you have a financial scheme involving, I do not know how much per week, which was remitted to a Select Committee of this House, and which comes into operation on Monday, which we have had no opportunity of discussing, and which when we do discuss on the Adjournment—as we are discussing now—nobody of any official importance except the Financial 357 Secretary is present. Yet it is the most vital question at the present moment. It is infinitely more vital than any question we have been discussing this afternoon. It means the maintenance of the women and children of the men who have gone to the front. I do not know what can be done between now and Monday, but I do suggest to the Financial Secretary to the War Office that he certainly ought to put the wife and family of the soldier in the provincial towns—that is the big industrial centres in the country—in as good a position as the women in the country. I shall be glad if he can see his way clear to do it.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker)The hon. Member has made a most interesting speech, to which I shall do my best to reply. I think, however, he will admit that during the latter part of it he was not so much addressing me as the Select Committee, which is not here.
§ Mr. BAKERI cannot claim to reflect the mind of the Select Committee as to anything that lies in the future, but I hope before I sit down that I shall be able to give my hon. Friend some information with regard to matters already settled. The hon. Member made a very ingenious attack upon the principles of flat-rate, and pointed out that it was bound to lead to inequality as between London and the provinces and the country districts. If I were to criticise his remarks on that point, I should do so very briefly, and only in one or two particulars. My hon. Friend referred to the formula as to the restoration of the home of the dependants to approximately the same degree of comfort as that before the soldier left. That formula is applied by the Select Committee to dependants, only because they had already adopted the principle of a fixed sum and flat-rate for wives. My hon. Friend avoided what might have been a rather fruitful source of criticism by practically admitting he asked for no money.
§ Mr. BAKERAnd suggested instead that the existing fund should be redistributed, so that it might, in his opinion, fall more fairly than it does at present. On that, I would point out that, if he is going to deal merely with the existing fund in order to carry out his scheme, he will be 358 taking money away from somebody who is enjoying it at present in order to give it to somebody who does not enjoy it. I think that those who lose the money might very possibly claim that they were the victims of a breach of faith on the part of the Government if any reduction were made in the interest of any other class.
§ Mr. HOGGEThey are not entitled to it until 1st March, and I am giving the hon. Member, on 24th February, time to repent.
§ Mr. BAKERThat brings me to what is, perhaps, the strongest ground of criticism of the hon. Member's suggestion, and it is that the whole of this question has, as I know, been very fully considered by the Select Committee. They have considered whether you should take into account variations of rent and variations in cost of living in different parts of the country, and, after consideration, they have decided that, on the whole, we had adopted the best plan. I would invite my hon. Friend to look at a paragraph in the Report, which seldom receives the attention it deserves, in which they say that any extra degree of necessity, or cases where hardship may be thought to exist, should be dealt with by appropriate machinery outside that provided by the flat rate. They have not attempted to lay down a rate that removes all possible hardships, but they have pointed to another, and in their opinion a better, way by which inequalities should be redressed. I turn to the earlier part of the speech of my hon. Friend, in which he asks me various questions with regard to arrears. He asked me what would happen with regard to wives who had married after the enlistment of their husbands, who, under the earlier definition, it will be remembered, were excluded from allowance, but are now admitted under the abolition of the restriction recommended by the Select Committee. I am expressing the intentions of the Select Commitee in saying that, whereas the new rates will begin from 1st March, the new classes are to receive arrears as from 1st February. That follows what is a very general practice in matters of this kind, of dating from the date on which the recommendation is made. As to whether the arrears are to be paid by instalments or lump sum, I cannot give a definite answer; but, as the amount will not be very considerable, I should think the usual practice of payment by way of lump sum should be followed.
§ Mr. BAKERMy hon. Friend is quite right to ask, and I was rather surprised that he omitted that class from his speech. That, of course, is another class which has now been admitted to allowance, and they likewise will receive from 1st February. I think I have answered the specific points. I regret I cannot give my hon. Friend complete satisfaction, because he is largely dealing with a settled matter, inasmuch as it is the intention of the Government, already partially carried out, to adopt without alteration the recommendations of the Select Committee.
§ Mr. CURRIEI listened with interest to the Financial Secretary's statement, and there is only one question that I would like him to answer, if he will be good enough to do so. I understood from the Under-Secretary for War the other day that before the end of this month an announcement would be made as to the bringing into operation of the machinery whereby an appeal could be taken where a difference of opinion existed between pension officers and pension committees, and I should be still glad to have from him a statement as to whether that machinery is ready, and just on the point of being brought into operation? For the rest, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that the fact that he is addressing a House consisting of three Labour Members, two Liberals, and two Unionists, can fairly be taken as an indication that any part of the House regards the matter of this pension allowance as of anything but of great importance.
§ Mr. BAKERWith regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member as to the machinery of appeal, I said it would 360 be ready by 1st March and it will be. I am not able to describe it to him at this moment, but I will renew the assurance gave him with still greater confidence.
§ Mr. BARNESPossibly I should be in order, but it would be unbecoming of me, to take part in the matter of controversy I raised by my hon. Friend, but probably I should be doing a good turn to everybody if I replied to the hon. Gentleman opposite. It so happens that the Committee has now finished so far as the appeal machinery is concerned, and we have decided that a right of appeal should be given, that the applicant should get a form at the Post Office, that that form when made up should be sent to a paymaster, the paymaster should himself settle if it is on a matter of regulation, and should send it back to the pension committee if a matter of amount, and if the pension committee and the pension officer agree, then that settles the matter as to the amount. I think I am justified in making this statement, because the Committee want the fullest possible publicity given to the matter. It has been decided to ask the Postmaster-General to exhibit notices in the post offices. It has also been agreed to ask voluntary associations to act so far as it is necessary for; them on behalf of the applicants, and generally speaking, I know that the Committee want the greatest possible publicity to be given to the fact that those cases that have been enumerated for some weeks can now be disposed of. That is my only justification for rising to make this statement in answer to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. CURRIEI am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes before Eight, of the clock.